[Game Design] Rule Book Organization

[[OMENRPG]Ben]

What are your thoughts regarding book organization for player actions?

To clarify, in a single-book system (no separation between PHB or DMG) would you prefer a list of defined actions with their rules and terms spelled out in the Player section of the book or in the Game Master section?

The argument is that if the rules are all in the GM side, the Player doesn't need to know any of the fiddly bits and can simply describe what they want to do. The GM has the rules reference in his portion of the book or on a quick reference table, and can make adjudications as necessary.

The counterargument is that a player should know what options he has available in terms of mechanical interaction with the game world, but as we've seen in certain game systems, that can prevent out of the box thinking. Tactical players who really enjoy the crunch element would probably like to know exactly what actions have what mechanical impact, but then one could say there's nothing stopping them from opening up the book and taking a look in the GM section.

This question arose during my development of the OMEN RPG book, and we are trying to streamline the player process as much as possible. We have a quick start guide that fits on a single page, which explains the gist of the system and how to do different things as a player, but currently we're keeping more of the crunchy bits strictly in the GM section of the book.

A number of my playtesters, who are now grizzled veterans in terms of OMEN (as they've been testing for over three years now), are very familiar with the mechanical aspects of all of the actions in the game. The majority of them have GMed their own OMEN playtest groups, and so have seen it from the back end as well.

What I've noticed is that the more experienced players are actually less creative than the brand new players. And this somewhat supports my theory that the more the player knows and understands the guts of the system, the more they will try to work within said mechanical constraints.

What are your thoughts? Any and all feedback is highly appreciated.

 

[halfjack]

I try to build books that follow the course of play and avoid as much as possible forward references. So that means that the core of the system is presented early, character generation next (since it relies on the system to make sense), and then details of the system. Finally adventure construction and operation is covered and then miscellany.

I don't always follow this as well as I could.

 

[Wild Gazebo]

What are your thoughts regarding book organization for player actions?

To clarify, in a single-book system (no separation between PHB or DMG) would you prefer a list of defined actions with their rules and terms spelled out in the Player section of the book or in the Game Master section?

The argument is that if the rules are all in the GM side, the Player doesn't need to know any of the fiddly bits and can simply describe what they want to do. The GM has the rules reference in his portion of the book or on a quick reference table, and can make adjudications as necessary.

The counterargument is that a player should know what options he has available in terms of mechanical interaction with the game world, but as we've seen in certain game systems, that can prevent out of the box thinking. Tactical players who really enjoy the crunch element would probably like to know exactly what actions have what mechanical impact, but then one could say there's nothing stopping them from opening up the book and taking a look in the GM section.

This question arose during my development of the OMEN RPG book, and we are trying to streamline the player process as much as possible. We have a quick start guide that fits on a single page, which explains the gist of the system and how to do different things as a player, but currently we're keeping more of the crunchy bits strictly in the GM section of the book.

A number of my playtesters, who are now grizzled veterans in terms of OMEN (as they've been testing for over three years now), are very familiar with the mechanical aspects of all of the actions in the game. The majority of them have GMed their own OMEN playtest groups, and so have seen it from the back end as well.

What I've noticed is that the more experienced players are actually less creative than the brand new players. And this somewhat supports my theory that the more the player knows and understands the guts of the system, the more they will try to work within said mechanical constraints.

What are your thoughts? Any and all feedback is highly appreciated.

That's a serious game-style question that should be a part of your mission. How do you want this game played? Is it story intensive...meaning the GM really holds all of the card in terms of mechanics? Or is it leaning toward the empowerment of players...meaning transparency of action is important for people to truly enjoy it?

There are examples of both in the industry. All I can really say is pick a side.


P.S. I like both...but usually only play the former in smaller one to three shot adventures. I think the inclusion of mechanic breeds a certain investment in the future for players...while storyteller really focuses on the present (living in the moment).

 

[steenan]

It is also a matter of what the "actions" you describe are.

If you put something in GM's part of the rulebook, it should be a guide for adjudicating and resolving situations, strongly based on the fictional situation. It should be something that any action that PCs take may be resolved with. If the mechanics is too rigid, many activities won't fit and the rules will hurt more than help with handling them.

Actions described in player's part may be less flexible - it's a player who chooses to use given action or not, and the Gm is not forced to select one that fits.